Figure 2.1 shows that the most innovation-friendly level is the niche or microlevel where small units or ‘situated groups’ experiment easily with alternative
solutions, as long as the degree of interdependencies with overarching or neighboring systems is not too strong. Examples here range from single technology
innovations like mobile phones to empowering local food production (e.g.,
Community Supported Agriculture or CSA). Their initial development often takes
place under conditions shielded from the overarching regime logic. These can be
laboratories for research and development in science, experimental pilots introduced by businesses, direct or indirect government subsidies for desired solutions,
or the emancipatory initiatives of citizens.
Higher levels of structuration characterize the regime or meso-level because it
hosts structures in the form of well-established institutional setups in governments
and markets, scientific standards and technologies or infrastructure. They change
much more slowly and define a framework for action that tends to stabilize the
status quo because it limits the scaling and multiplying of alternative solutions.
Yet, the MLP is not intended to present a hierarchical ordering but rather
embedded systems. It could and often is read as a bottom-up theory of change, in
particular because the arrows that represent change-inducing pioneering activity in
the graph emerge from the niche level. But it is important to point out that change
can emerge on all levels. Pioneering initiatives can be little hubs of deviation and
innovation within entities that fall into the regime grouping—for example, research
and development units in big corporations or inter-ministerial units in government.
An activity is pioneering if the solutions it promotes differ radically from the status
quo. And typically, niche actors depend on support from pioneering actors within
the regime institutions in order for their solutions to become part of an adapted or
transformed system configuration.
For this to happen, an important role is given to the landscape or meta-level. It
harbors all those aspects that intentional action will likely not be able to change in
the short- or medium-term. These are natural developments like climate change but
also deeply anchored human-made institutions like the market system or hegemonic
paradigms, social values and cultural beliefs. This level forms the backdrop, or
deeper structuration, of lower-level developments. Sudden expressions of ongoing
changes here, like natural disasters, a massive financial crisis or an outbreak of
right-wing violence against refugees, have the quality of shocks for the subsystems
and their self-stabilizing processes. These shocks tend to be windows of opportunity for change, a point I will return to below.
Depending on the author, one finds slightly diverging descriptions of the level at
which single aspects like market patterns or policy orientation rest, i.e., regime or
landscape level. This choice often depends on the actual case researched and the
individual view of the researcher as to what should and can be changed intentionally. The joint message is that the higher the level, the slower the change
processes and the more difficult for individual actors to imbue transformational
missions. But it also means the higher the level the higher the transformational
22
2 What Political Economy Adds to Transformation Research
solutions, as long as the degree of interdependencies with overarching or neighboring systems is not too strong. Examples here range from single technology
innovations like mobile phones to empowering local food production (e.g.,
Community Supported Agriculture or CSA). Their initial development often takes
place under conditions shielded from the overarching regime logic. These can be
laboratories for research and development in science, experimental pilots introduced by businesses, direct or indirect government subsidies for desired solutions,
or the emancipatory initiatives of citizens.
Higher levels of structuration characterize the regime or meso-level because it
hosts structures in the form of well-established institutional setups in governments
and markets, scientific standards and technologies or infrastructure. They change
much more slowly and define a framework for action that tends to stabilize the
status quo because it limits the scaling and multiplying of alternative solutions.
Yet, the MLP is not intended to present a hierarchical ordering but rather
embedded systems. It could and often is read as a bottom-up theory of change, in
particular because the arrows that represent change-inducing pioneering activity in
the graph emerge from the niche level. But it is important to point out that change
can emerge on all levels. Pioneering initiatives can be little hubs of deviation and
innovation within entities that fall into the regime grouping—for example, research
and development units in big corporations or inter-ministerial units in government.
An activity is pioneering if the solutions it promotes differ radically from the status
quo. And typically, niche actors depend on support from pioneering actors within
the regime institutions in order for their solutions to become part of an adapted or
transformed system configuration.
For this to happen, an important role is given to the landscape or meta-level. It
harbors all those aspects that intentional action will likely not be able to change in
the short- or medium-term. These are natural developments like climate change but
also deeply anchored human-made institutions like the market system or hegemonic
paradigms, social values and cultural beliefs. This level forms the backdrop, or
deeper structuration, of lower-level developments. Sudden expressions of ongoing
changes here, like natural disasters, a massive financial crisis or an outbreak of
right-wing violence against refugees, have the quality of shocks for the subsystems
and their self-stabilizing processes. These shocks tend to be windows of opportunity for change, a point I will return to below.
Depending on the author, one finds slightly diverging descriptions of the level at
which single aspects like market patterns or policy orientation rest, i.e., regime or
landscape level. This choice often depends on the actual case researched and the
individual view of the researcher as to what should and can be changed intentionally. The joint message is that the higher the level, the slower the change
processes and the more difficult for individual actors to imbue transformational
missions. But it also means the higher the level the higher the transformational
22
2 What Political Economy Adds to Transformation Research